A Systematic Literature Review and Synthesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Information Management 37 (2017) 1380–1390 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Information Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt Revisiting the information audit: A systematic literature review and synthesis Robert B. Frost, Chun Wei Choo ∗ Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, 140 St. George. St., Toronto, ON M5S 3G6, Canada article info a b s t r a c t Article history: The purpose of this paper is to revitalize the theory and practice of the Information Audit (IA) by con- Received 25 May 2016 necting it with recent developments in information management theories and methods While the IA is Received in revised form 8 September 2016 a powerful information management practice, the methods and applications of IA have not been wed- Accepted 11 October 2016 ded to recent developments in the study of information management capability and information quality management. This study addresses that gap. The paper also introduces and applies a systematic method- Keywords: ology for conducting literature reviews that combines concept mapping, review scoping, and a structured Information audit search and analysis process. The resulting search in Scopus and Proquest and subsequent analysis of the Information management Information quality recent literature (2011–2016) on IA and quality, evaluation, measurement, and maturity in the con- Quality management text of information management yielded the following findings and recommendations. IA research and Literature review methodology practice could do well to: pursue contingency frameworks rather than seek universal standardization; investigate the relationship between IA and the dimensions of information quality and information man- agement quality; undertake case studies that apply more foundational IA methodologies in full; develop theories of IA maturity and IA maturity modelling methods; recognize that measurement and evaluation of information management quality and information quality are necessary elements of the IA and should be explicitly incorporated into IA methodology. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction cover every step of the baseline. Henczel’s methodology involves seven stages (pp. 18–19): The information audit (IA) has been defined by Buchanan and Gibb (2007) as “a holistic approach to identifying and evaluating an organization’s information resources and information flow, in order 1) Planning the audit by setting objectives, identifying stakehold- to facilitate effective and efficient information systems” (p. 171). ers, scoping the project and allocating resources, selecting a The IA provides “an invaluable structure of knowledge” in formu- methodology, and developing communications and business lating an organizational information strategy (Orna, 2004; p. 105), strategies. and as Buchanan and Gibb (2008) note, the IA’s influence on infor- 2) Collecting data in an information resources database, design- mation management, technology, systems, and content are well ing and distributing questionnaires, holding focus groups, and established in much of the foundational literature on IA (Buchanan conducting personal interviews. & Gibb, 1998; Burk & Horton, 1998; Henczel, 2001; Orna, 1999). 3) Analyzing the collected data and research. In its fullest form, the IA encompasses all the methods and tools 4) Evaluating gaps and duplications in information, mapping and needed to catalogue, model, evaluate, quality-control, and analyze interpreting information flows, formulating recommendations, an organization’s information assets and information management. and developing a change management plan. In their comparative analysis of the common IA methodologies 5) Communicating recommendations to stakeholders through established in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Buchanan and Gibb written reports, presentations and seminars, webpages, and per- (2008) propose a seven step methodological baseline for the IA and sonal feedback. find that the methodologies of Orna (1999) and Henczel (2001) 6) Implementing recommendations through implementation programs, formal change plans, post-implementation strategies, and information policies. 7) Ongoing information service management to measure and ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.B. Frost), [email protected] assess the changes through a regular information audit and ser- (C.W. Choo). vice evaluation cycle. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.10.001 0268-4012/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. R.B. Frost, C.W. Choo / International Journal of Information Management 37 (2017) 1380–1390 1381 Other established methodologies cover all seven stages of the the conceptual mapping process led to the development of an ana- baseline in different sequences or with added stages (e.g. Orna, lytical framework, which would ensure a consistent approach to 1999), do not provide guidance for the planning the audit (e.g. analysis in later stages of the literature review. Buchanan & Gibb, 1998), or do not provide guidance for planning Two perspectives on quality were considered: information qual- or change management following a report of the audit’s findings ity and information management quality. Information quality was (e.g. Burk & Horton, 1998). Griffiths (2012) notes that the tradi- understood with respect to Floridi’s (2013) characterization of tional, established IA methods are generally concerned with Hard information quality as the categories, dimensions, purpose-depth, IA, involving “notions of compliance, regulation and accuracy” (p. and purpose-scope that shape a unit of information. Informa- 43), rather than improving the usability of information assets, tion management quality was understood with respect to Mithas, increasing the efficiency of information use, or finding opportuni- Ramasubbu, and Sambamurthy’s (2011) characterization of high- ties for business innovation by changing information management quality information management capability as “the ability to practices (what Griffiths calls Soft IA). Henczel’s later emphasis on provide data and information to users with the appropriate levels user-centric interviews and focus groups, information flow map- of accuracy, timeliness, reliability, security, confidentiality, con- ping, as well as integration with change management and service nectivity, and access and the ability to tailor these in response to management showed that the IA could have applications beyond changing business needs and directions” (p. 238). Measurement the “hard” realm of accountability and compliance. and evaluation were understood interchangeably as appraisals of While the IA is a powerful information management practice, a quality criterion with reference to a specific performance indi- the methods of both hard and soft IA described in the literature have cator (e.g. the appraisal of a form’s accessibility with reference not been wedded to recent developments in the study of informa- to the quantity or severity of access barriers it contains). Matu- tion management capability (as described by Mithas, Ramasubbu, rity was understood with respect to Marchand, Kettinger, and & Sambamurthy, 2011) and information quality management (as Rollins’ (2001) view of information orientation maturity as a mix- conceptualized in the framework of Baskarada & Koronios, 2014). ture of highly developed information capabilities. Benchmarking Furthermore, measurement and evaluation techniques such as was understood as an alternative approach to maturity modelling information asset registration and maturity modelling remain in which an organization’s internal measurements are compared to largely absent from most IA methodologies, their synthesis with IA external measurements, rather than compared to internal targets. representing a direction for further research (Griffiths, 2012). With With the key concepts for analysis defined, their links to an IA the advent of widespread digital transformation and the rise of big were established in relation to Buchanan and Gibb’s (2007) descrip- data, it is now more important than ever for organizations to have tion of the IA as “a holistic approach to identifying and evaluating methods and tools for auditing and evaluating their information an organization’s information resources and information flow, in assets. order to facilitate effective and efficient organizational information With the aim of better connecting the IA literature with recent systems” (p. 171). In deconstructing Buchanan and Gibb’s descrip- information management theories and methods, this paper poses tion of the IA process, four implications for the linkages between an three research questions for investigation: IA and the other concepts under investigation in this paper become RQ1: What recent research (from 2011 to 2016) has been done evident: on IA? Implication 1: The IA requires an evaluation of information RQ2: What recent research (from 2011 to 2016) has been done resources and flows. on quality, evaluation, measurement, and maturity in the context Implication 2: The evaluation of information resources entails of information management? a measurement of information quality. RQ3: In the future, how might IA researchers and practitioners Implication 3: The evaluation of information flows entails a synthesize the recent research on IA with the recent research on measurement of information management quality. information management quality, evaluation, measurement, and Implication 4: The measures of